The Wonk Room

Dingell Offers Climate Draft With Options: Polluter Bailout Or Green Recovery»

As the 110th Congress comes to a close, two of the legislators in charge of climate legislation in the House of Representatives yesterday released a draft climate plan. Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), the powerful chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA), chair of the Energy and Air Quality subcommittee, have primary jurisdiction in the House for legislation that puts mandatory limits on carbon emissions. Although such legislation has been a top priority for Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) since she became Speaker of the House in January 2007, Dingell and Boucher declared they would not be rushed, instead working on the 2007 energy bill, holding several hearings and releasing four white papers from October to May of this year. Dingell’s district is in the heart of the U.S. auto industry; Boucher represents Virginia’s coal country. Below is an analysis of some of the key issues raised in their 460-page draft legislation, an ambitious effort by the two congressmen.

EMISSIONS TARGETS. Dingell and Boucher call for emissions reductions of 80 percent from 2005 levels by 2050, in line with the minimum of scientific recommendations, but with reductions of only six percent below 2005 levels by 2020. Punting any significant reductions until after 2020 means that the Dingell-Boucher plan falls grossly short of what is needed to forestall catastrophe:

In contrast, Europe is maintaining its commitment to unilateral reductions of 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.

REGULATORY STRUCTURE. In their letter to other members, Dingell and Boucher criticize the Supreme Court’s Massachusetts v. EPA decision that the EPA must regulate greenhouse gases, saying, “We believe that elected and accountable representatives in the Congress, not the Executive Branch, should properly design that regulatory program.” Their legislation would overturn the Supreme Court ruling by removing greenhouse gases from the Clean Air Act’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards regulations.

The draft provides a broad range of options for dealing with vehicle emissions standards, ranging from preempting the right of California and other states to provide additional protection from automotive pollution to allowing the EPA and the states to implement such protections. They also signal that they see state-level regulation of emissions as an economic threat, saying their actions “could be disruptive to interstate commerce and counterproductive to the goal of limiting national greenhouse gas emissions.” Their draft legislation would outlaw any state or regional cap and trade program.

MONEY. The Center for American Progress strongly supports the “polluter pays” principle for cap and trade programs to reduce global warming. The cost of pollution allowances should not be shifted to the taxpayer. Giving free permits to polluters would be a global warming bailout. The polluting industries are lobbying heavily to receive most if not all permits for free, particularly in initial years of the program. The European cap-and-trade system originally gave away permits, resulting in massive windfall profits for polluters. They are moving to a full auction of permits, like the new Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative cap-and-trade program that covers northeastern states.

The Dingell-Boucher draft does not take a position on how permits should be allocated initially, instead detailing four scenarios, three of which involve massive giveaways to covered industries. In every scenario, Dingell-Boucher would protect low-income consumers from increases in energy prices through tax breaks and rebates, and invest heavily in new technology deployment (e.g., renewables, advanced coal, advanced vehicles). Although their allocation scenarios are risible in detail, they do a good job of covering the competing priorities in moving to a low-carbon economy:

1. Protect low-income consumers from energy costs
2. Minimize compliance costs for covered polluters
3. Invest in technology development and deployment
4. Invest in complementary programs in efficiency and clean energy
5. Support international efforts and adaptation
6. Give rebates to middle- and upper-income consumers

Dingell and Boucher believe that low-income families must be protected, that industry should receive pollution cost protection and new technology support, and that all else is up for debate. Over half of their Democratic colleagues indicated last week a very different set of priorities, that focuses not on protecting polluters but on respecting scientific urgency, delivering economic equity, and capturing the energy opportunity.

Representatives Announce Legislative Principles To ‘Save The Planet From Calamitous Global Warming’»

Today, 152 members of the House of Representatives — over one-third of all members and nearly two-thirds of all Democrats — signed and submitted a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stating their guiding principles for “comprehensive global warming legislation” to “save the planet from calamitous global warming.” The letter, led by representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA), Ed Markey (D-MA), and Jay Inslee (D-WA), was delivered to Pelosi this morning.

The legislators describe four key goals:

1. Reduce emissions to avoid dangerous global warming;
2. Transition America to a clean energy economy;
3. Recognize and minimize any economic impacts from global warming legislation; and
4. Aid communities and ecosystems vulnerable to harm from global warming.

These are the necessary principles that should guide any path out of the climate crisis. What makes this letter significant is the strong, specific details endorsed by the 152 signatories. These include the following measures to respect the severity of the danger of rising greenhouse gas emissions:

– “The United States must do its part to keep global temperatures from rising more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above pre-industrial levels.”

– “Total U.S. emissions must be capped by a date certain, decline every year, be reduced to 15% to 20% below current levels in 2020, and fall to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.”

– “A mechanism for periodic scientific review is necessary, and EPA, and other agencies as appropriate, must adjust the regulatory response if the latest science indicates that more reductions are needed.”

– “Cost-containment measures must not break the cap on global warming pollution.”

– “The United States must reengage in the international negotiations to establish binding emissions reductions goals under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change . . . for the United States and other developed nations to achieve combined emissions reductions of at least 25% below 1990 levels by 2020, as called for by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

Read the rest of this entry »

McCain Rep Lies: McCain’s Global Warming Targets ‘Consistent With International Scientific Consensus’»

I’ll be appearing on the live Meet the Bloggers webcast this Friday, September 19, at 1 PM: meetthebloggers.org.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Sen. John McCain’s “I’m a Ph.D. economist” adviser, is evidently having a mental meltdown, perhaps brought on by the collapse in the financial markets engineered by McCain’s other “economic brain,” Phil Gramm.

Although his comment giving Sen. McCain credit for the miraculous invention of the Blackberry is meriting deserved ridicule, Holtz-Eakin’s column in yesterday’s Financial Times on climate change includes unambiguous lies to defend McCain’s polluter-friendly climate plan. Holtz-Eakin lies about McCain’s cap and trade plan:

His policy would reduce emissions to 2005 levels by 2012 and ultimately 66 per cent below 2005 levels by 2050, and would cover sectors responsible for just below 90 per cent of all emissions. These targets are consistent with the international scientific consensus and reflect the balance between environmental objectives and the need for economic growth. . . . Despite this, Mr Obama has chosen an unrealistic target for emissions reductions, and opposes measures to ease the transition.

The numbers are accurate, but everything else is a lie. The international scientific consensus in 2007, as clearly defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report (Working Group III, Chapter 13, Box 13.7), calls for the United States and other industrialized nations to reduce emissions 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, and 80 to 95 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

McCain’s targets are totally inconsistent with the international scientific consensus, and Obama’s are also insufficient, though less so. Holtz-Eakin’s claim that Obama’s targets are “unrealistic” is bizarre, considering that McCain and Obama have proposed the same emissions target for the year 2020.

McCain’s plan has major loopholes which would make achieving such targets unlikely. Furthermore, McCain supports giveaways of pollution credits to industry, guaranteeing massive windfall profits for polluters at the expense of American families.

But this analysis is likely giving too much credence to the words of Holtz-Eakin directed to the international audience of the Financial Times. Speaking to the American public, McCain surrogates like Steve Forbes and Tim Pawlenty have denigrated cap-and-trade legislation. In 2000, candidate Bush claimed he’d regulate carbon dioxide pollution, but put Dick Cheney in charge of energy policy. In an eerie replay, McCain today has tapped Sarah Palin — who doesn’t believe in global warming — to be in charge of energy policy.

McCain Surrogate Tim Pawlenty: Human Impact On Global Warming ‘Half A Percent’»

Appearing on the Glenn Beck radio show yesterday, Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) denigrated the science of climate change, saying the human impact on global warming was only “half a percent.” He implied mandatory programs to reduce global warming emissions — like the cap-and-trade programs he has previously called for — would “wreck the economy.” And he said that it’s “understandable” that plans to fix global warming have “faded into the background” because of the “energy crisis”:

But, you know, in my view is this: you can argue that the world, the globe is warming as it always has for natural reasons. But I think the weight of the science indicates that at least some of it — you could argue it’s half a percent or something more substantial — is caused by human behavior. . . But, in the wake of this energy crisis, where people are struggling to pay the bills, that debate on cap and trade has fallen to the background for understandable reasons.

Listen here (and watch the latest global boiling reports):

Gov. Pawlenty has been a “driving force” for a regional cap-and-trade system, so it’s unclear if he’s just pandering to Beck, a notorious global warming denier, or if he’s retreating from principle. This is not the first time an adviser to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has denigrated the prospects for climate change legislation. In July, Steve Forbes told Glenn Beck that cap-and-trade and related proposals are not “going to get very far as people start to examine the details of them.” And in May, Sen. McCain himself agreed with Beck that solutions to climate change can be delayed.

Digg it!

Transcript: Read the rest of this entry »

Global Boiling: Grassley Calls Tornado A ‘Wake-Up Call,’ Filibusters Climate Legislation»

Of the “the first F–5 tornado to strike Iowa since 1976″ that killed eight people Memorial Day weekend, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) rose on the Senate floor on June 5 to say:

In some ways, the storm may serve as a wake-up call to those of us who have become somewhat complacent about severe weather warnings.

Watch it:

The next day, Grassley joined 37 of his colleagues to filibuster climate legislation, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act.

This week, Grassley continued to ignore Mother Nature’s message. On Monday, June 9, he wrote on his blog:

My hometown of New Hartford was evacuated last night due to flooding just weeks after a tornado caused a lot of damage.

The next day, Grassley joined 43 other senators in a party-line vote to filibuster the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008.

UPDATE: Matt Stoller at Open Left writes:

I just got off the phone with a Congressional staffer, who couldn’t quite focus on the issue we were supposed to discuss because she is working overtime on the floods in the Midwest. So I turned on cable news, and found out that the floods are plastered all over, much as the wildfires in California were in October of 2007. And just like 2007, the major environmental groups are AWOL on the most covered climate event of the year so far.

Cap And Rebate Scheme Based On Libertarian Mistrust Of Communities»

Peter Barnes

At Gristmill, economist Peter Barnes hails the demise of the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade bill as an opportunity to propose his favored alternative:

A revenue-neutral cap would cover all carbon entering the economy, auction all permits, and return the proceeds to every American equally, ideally as monthly dividends.

I agree wholeheartedly that all greenhouse emissions permits should be auctioned, but Barnes is wrong when he advocates that all proceeds should then be cut as rebates (or “dividends”) to American taxpayers. As the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has found, reserving just 14 percent of all proceeds for direct rebates can fully protect low-income Americans from potential costs. By contrast, Barnes’s cap-and-rebate proposal — which he’s variously sold as “cap-and-recycle,” “cap-and-dividend,” and “Sky Trust” — is founded on the libertarian belief that government shouldn’t be trusted with any money. As he’s written:

If you assume the atmosphere belongs to government, then cap-and-auction is your choice. If you assume the atmosphere is a gift to everyone, then cap-and-recycle follows.

Implicit is the assertion that our government is not representative of the American people — a corrosive, anti-American philosophy. In a slideshow supporting cap-and-rebate, the eminent climate scientist and “middle-of-the-road conservative” James Hansen admitted this anti-government philosophy more bluntly: “keep hands off money!”

Creating the green economy that breaks our addiction to fossil fuels and solves global warming requires investment at all levels of community — local, state, federal, and global. Barnes’s proposal is bad politics and bad policy. Read the Center for American Progress report, Investing in a Green Economy, for a better way.

Democratic Senators Make Pollution Lobbyist Demands»

The ten Democratic signatories: Debbie Stabenow & Carl Levin (MI), Mark Pryor & Blanche Lincoln (AR), Evan Bayh (IN), Sherrod Brown (OH), Jay Rockefeller (WV), Jim Webb (VA), Claire McCaskill (MO), and Ben Nelson (NE). Download the letter.

As the New York Times noted today, ten Democratic senators echoed polluters in a letter sent to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) about her filibustered climate change legislation last Friday. The senators, nine of whom supported cloture to end debate and vote on amendments, wrote, “We commend your leadership in attempting to address one of the most significant threats to this and future generations; however, we cannot support final passage of the Boxer Substitute in its final form.” Their letter continues:

To that point we have laid out the following principles and concerns that must be considered and fully addressed in any final legislation.

The senators’ letter uses practically the same talking points and specific policy demands as the industry polluters who fought to kill the legislation, in particular the industry lobbying groups American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM). A review of the letter reveals the Boxer substitute (S. Amdt. 4825 to the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, S. 3036) already made concessions to these parochial and fossil-industry demands:

Polluter Talking Point #1: “Contain Costs and Prevent Harm to the U.S. Economy.” Read the rest of this entry »

Global Boiling: Senators Ignore The Warning Signs»

FOXNews Extreme Weather Center

Recently, United States Senate has taken several votes on building a green economy that moves away from fossil fuel dependence, creates new green industry, and addresses global warming. Each time a minority of senators blocked the way. On Friday, 38 senators filibustered mandatory greenhouse gas reduction legislation (S. 3036). This morning, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) joined 41 Republicans to filibuster the Consumer-First Energy Act (S. 3044), which would have given consumers relief by placing a windfall tax on oil companies. Then 44 Republican senators blocked consideration of the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act (H.R. 6049) to extend renewable energy and other tax incentives.

Meanwhile the signs of the looming climate crisis abound. Extreme weather of all kinds — freak snowstorms, extended droughts, heat waves, flash floods — are causing havoc around the nation, and conservative neglect is leaving us unprepared and unable to rebuild:

– On May 25, “the strongest tornado to scour Iowa’s gentle landscape in 32 years” destroyed a third of the town of Parkersburg, killing eight people.

– On May 30, a tornado destroyed 11 homes and left 65,000 people without power in Indiana.

– On June 6, tornadoes, hail and flooding destroyed homes and washed out roads in Minnesota. North Carolina governor Mike Easley declared a state of emergency as extended drought kindled a massive wildfire in the eastern part of the state.

– On June 7, flooding in Indiana killed two people, a man who drowned in his vehicle. Another person was reported missing after falling off a boat. Nearly a third of Indiana’s counties were declared disaster areas today after flood levels rose higher than the The Great Flood of 1913, breaching levees and inundating entire towns.

– On June 8, violent storms killed eight people in Michigan, including two newspaper workers who drowned when their car became submerged in a flood-swollen creek. Two other people were killed by falling trees, one man drowned and a woman died when high winds blew an RV on top of her. Hundreds of thousands of people lost power after storms dumped five inches of rain in six hours. Lightning struck a pavilion at a state park in Connecticut during a violent storm, killing one person and injuring four.

– On June 9, floodwaters breached a dam on Lake Delton, Wisconsin, as Gov. Jim Doyle declared a state of emergency in the southern half of Wisconsin. The “unusual spring heat wave” caused blackouts in Brooklyn and New Jersey. A new crop of thunderstorms knocked out power in Indiana for thousands of Indianapolis-area residents.

– Today, a freak June snowstorm caused whiteout conditions on Oregon roads, forcing truckers to use chains to navigate the five inches of new snow.

Summer officially begins on June 20.

In 2007, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported that it is “very likely” that manmade global warming will bring an “increase in frequency of hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation.” The panel of scientists and government officials also found:

Altered frequencies and intensities of extreme weather, together with sea level rise, are expected to have mostly adverse effects on natural and human systems.

We Can Build An Inclusive Green Economy»

Our guest bloggers are Jason Walsh and Van Jones from Green for All.

This morning, Senate debate on the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act came to an end. It was a missed opportunity to robustly debate a critical issue facing the country. The bill had the potential, particularly if strengthened during the amendment process, to affect profound and positive change for both the American people and the planet.

It is a shame that political gamesmanship paralyzed the Senate on such a crucial piece of legislation. Many of the arguments against the legislation were patently false. It was particularly ironic that some senators chose to argue against this bill on the basis that it does not protect those less fortunate; their voting records clearly indicate that the poor are not the constituents with whom they are most concerned.

Hypocrisy aside, the claim that the bill hurts the underserved ignored the assistance for low-income families and workers already in the legislation — which could and should have been strengthened by an amendment filed by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) — and the critical investments that the bill makes in providing economic opportunities for low-income workers and building the wealth and health of low-income communities.

The fact of the matter is that this issue is far too important to employ scare tactics and play politics with. The effects of global warming, which hit low-income people first and worst, are real and they warrant a genuine discussion and substantive action.

We do, however, want to commend Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA). She has proven herself to be the national leader and voice that we have been longing for in the Senate. She is a true heroine, and the nation will owe her an incalculable debt when we finally win sane climate policy in the United States.

We hope to continue the conversation, and insist that any federal climate legislation must: Read the rest of this entry »

BREAKING: Fossil-Based Politicians Filibuster Climate Legislation»

This morning, in the only order of business today, the Senate voted 48-36 to filibuster the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 3036) — 60 votes would have been required to achieve cloture and limit debate. 16 senators — six Democrats and ten Republicans — failed to vote.

The vote was specifically on cloture for Senator Barbara Boxer’s (D-CA) substititute amendment (S.A. 4825) to the bill.

UPDATE: Daniel J. Weiss, Senior Fellow and Director of Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund:

Once again President Bush acted as big-oil lobbyist-in-chief to help block debate over the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act S. 3036. Despite his opposition, and millions of dollars of campaign cash from oil, coal and other interests, this bill got the most support ever for a global warming bill. This occurred due to the vigorous leadership from Senators Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer.

At the last minute, Senator John McCain issued support for cloture, but at a price: billions of dollars for nuclear pork, and zero assistance for American families. He did nothing to convince President Bush or Senate Republican leaders to end their obstruction. And then he had the gall to claim it was Majority Leader Harry Reid who “put politics above policy.”

The missing ingredient for solving global warming is consistent presidential leadership, which should begin on Inauguration Day 2009. Our economy and planet can’t wait much longer.

UPDATE II: The roll call has been posted. Read the rest of this entry »

GOP Memo: Goal For Climate Debate Is ‘Making Political Points’»

At 11 PM last night, following the eight-hour marathon reading on the Senate floor of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act forced by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) revealed the existence of a GOP strategy memo on the climate debate.

The anonymous memo, provided to Reid “by a lobbyist involved in Republican strategy meetings” and obtained by the subscription-only E&E News, admits that the only goal of the Republican caucus is obstruction and grandstanding:

The goal is for a theme (e.g. climate bill - higher gas prices) each day, and the focus is much more on making political points than in amending the bill, changing the baseline text for any future debate, or affecting policy.

The full memo explains the GOP strategy to obstruct and delay action:

As Senator Reid said in response:

Mr. President, you could not make anything up more cynical. This is the truth and they say truth is stranger than fiction, and this certainly is.

Watch it:

Download the memo here.

Digg It!

Right-Wing Senators Oppose New Deal To Solve Global Warming»

On May 27, the Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote about the Climate Security Act:

Warner-Lieberman would impose the most extensive government reorganization of the American economy since the 1930s.

A week later, Sen. Jim Inhofe changed “reorganization” to “expansion,” writing in the Wall Street Journal that the climate legislation “will create the largest expansion of the federal government since FDR’s New Deal.”

Conservative senators have been coordinated on the Senate floor in repeating the Wall Street Journal-Inhofe message:

Judd Gregg (R-NH): These allowances which really are a consumption tax in my opinion will essentially be used to greatly expand the government.

John Cornyn (R-TX): This is the kind of huge expansion in government power over our lives and over the economy that is really unprecedented in our country, and I suggest is the wrong solution — is a — is a wrong answer to the — to what confronts us today.

George Voinovich (R-OH): I feel it is overly aggressive, outpacing what technology can provide and thus assuring economic pain on the country and it is overly bureaucratic and cumbersome in its implementation, representing an unprecedented expansion of government power and a massive bureaucratic intrusion in American lives that will have a profound effect on businesses, communities and families.

The right wing is still upset with Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal, and wants to go back to an era without the system of labor, health, economic, and environmental protections that built the American middle class. They fear that the American public will realize that a New Green Deal of progressive policies could restore our economic future. Yesterday, Chuck Grassley (R-IA) complained:

The bill before us creates a raft of new government spending programs.

He and his fellow conservatives have put us on a sinking ship, are burning the life preservers, and won’t even let us build a “raft.” As David Roberts writes, “Unless we want to go down with the ship, we need to start building an ark.”

UPDATE: Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) shut down the Senate floor this afternoon by forcing the Senate clerk to read the entire text of the legislation. McConnell alleged that the Democratic leadership “refused to honor its commitments” and push through a significant number of judicial nominees.

Energy Industry Campaign Cash Fuels Straight Talk Express»

Our guest blogger is Daniel J. Weiss, a Senior Fellow and the Director of Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Republican Presidential nominee apparent John McCain brags about his leadership on climate change. He even taunted Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton when he said:

I don’t know what their position is because I haven’t seen them show any particular commitment in the U.S. Senate or elsewhere [on climate change]. I have proposed legislation and fought for amendments.

With all of his bragging about global warming, you would think Sen. McCain would be at the center of this week’s Senate’s debate over the Climate Security Act, sponsored by Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Joe Lieberman (I-CT), and John Warner (R-VA). Unfortunately, he doesn’t plan to participate in the debate, and opposes the bill because it lacks big bucks to build nuclear power plants.

How come the Straight Talk Express can’t find the U.S. Senate for this critical debate?

Is it because Sen. McCain has received more money from the special interests that oppose this bill than all but one other member of the Senate? He has received over $2 million from oil, coal, utility, auto, chemical and nuclear companies from the 1990 cycle to the first quarter of 2008. In fact, of this total, McCain received nearly two-thirds of it — $1.2 million — since he began his presidential quest 18 months ago. And like Senator McCain, these interests and the trade associations they fund oppose the Climate Security Act.

*See update below for revised 2008 figure.

Since McCain began running for president in 2007, he missed all the important clean energy votes. He did make sure to wink at big oil by announcing he would have supported its existing unjustified tax breaks had he been around. The bipartisan effort to close these loopholes failed by one vote. And after he missed the opportunity to become the deciding vote to extend tax incentives for efficiency and wind and solar power by adding it to the stimulus package, he gave a nod to big coal and huge utility conglomerates by announcing he would have opposed this measure too.

Sen. McCain plans to use his support for reductions in global warming pollution as a central element in his effort to distinguish himself from President Bush. On June 3rd, he proclaimed, “The next President must be willing to break completely with the energy policies not just of the Bush Administration, but the administrations that preceded his.” But Sen. McCain is a leader in campaign donations from the same interests who helped Bush write his energy plan that brought us $4 gallon gasoline. And like the Bush administration, he also opposes the Climate Security Act.

Frequently, Sen. McCain has lectured his colleagues about the corrupting nature of campaign contributions and lobbyists. He preached that “Our government must be free from corrupting influences, both real and perceived.” A large part of his reputation as a “maverick” rests on this issue. Yet his campaign is run by lobbyists. And he has received more campaign cash from big energy companies than 98 other senators, and then joins their opposition to the Climate Security Act. Sen. McCain appears to be nothing more than another senator influenced by special interests -– a prime example of the Washington influence system that he bemoans.

Read the full report — PACing Away the Climate Security Act?

UPDATE 6/17: McCain’s oil & gas industry take for the 2008 cycle, including contributions reported on May 21, has risen to $723,777, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, bringing his career receipts to $981,804.

Report: Strong Climate Policy Would Protect 14 Million American Jobs»

A new report from the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, finds that strong climate policy is a driver for a healthy economy. A policy that prioritizes energy efficiency and renewable energy — such as cap-and-trade legislation that limits carbon emissions — will drive investment into those sectors. From day one, the millions of Americans working in such jobs will enjoy greater job security.

Strong Climate Action Directly Benefits Over 14 Million American Workers. “What is clear from this report is that millions of U.S. workers — across a wide range of occupations, states, and income levels — will all benefit from the project of defeating global warming and transforming the United States into a green economy.” Over 14 million people throughout the country are employed in 45 representative occupations that would benefit in a low-carbon economy, roughly nine percent of today’s total U.S. workforce. [PERI, 5/28/08]

The six green strategies examined in the report are: building retrofitting, mass transit, energy-efficient automobiles, wind power, solar power, and cellulosic biomass fuels. PERI’s analysis shows that the vast majority of jobs associated with these six green strategies are in the same areas of employment that people already work in to-day, in every region and state of the country.

JOBS THAT WILL BUILD THE GREEN U.S. ECONOMY AND FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING

As the report’s authors note, “The percentage of total U.S. employment involved in green jobs could be expanded dramatically if we had reported the various service and support occupations that will be needed for each of the six green investment areas.” And if they considered other green investments — “the listing of representative occupations — again, still not attempting an exhaustive list — would need to expand further.”

Labor and industry leaders have heralded the report’s findings: Read the rest of this entry »

New York Times Uses Inhofe Talking Points»

In today’s Wall Street Journal, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), the most prominent global warming denier in Congress, attacked the Lieberman-Warner climate cap-and-trade legislation now being debated on the Senate floor. Inhofe began his opinion piece by claiming this will be a vote on legislation that will raise gas prices that are already at record highs:

With average gas prices across the country approaching $4 a gallon, it may be hard to believe, but the U.S. Senate is considering legislation this week that will further drive up the cost at the pump.

In today’s New York Times, John M. Broder accepted Inhofe’s frame for the debate, beginning his article by claiming this will be a vote on legislation that will raise gas prices that are already at record highs:

The Senate on Monday opened a raucous debate over climate change legislation even though it will put supporters of the bill, including all three presidential candidates, on the spot — essentially forcing them to come out in favor of high energy costs at a time when American consumers are paying record fuel prices.

Describing the bill, “for better or worse,” as a “wrenching change,” Broder also engages in he-said she-said stenography throughout the piece, never once bothering to question the accuracy of the fears raised by climate deniers like Inhofe.

In his opinion piece, Inhofe falsely claims, “We are certain of the huge negative impact on the economy as detailed by numerous government and private analyses.” Broder copies down, “[M]any senators in both parties see the legislation as an expensive long-term plan that would do little to solve today’s energy supply and price problems.”

In his opinion piece, Inhofe writes, “Carbon caps will have an especially harmful impact on low-income Americans and those with fixed incomes.” Broder offers Inhofe an entire paragraph to shed his crocodile tears for poor Americans:

“Any action has to provide real protections for the American economy and jobs, and we must protect the American families,” said Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma. “Any action should not raise the cost of gasoline or energy to American families, particularly the low-income and elderly who are most susceptible to energy costs.”

As the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities wrote today:

Some opponents of cap and trade legislation have claimed that such legislation is inherently harmful to low-income consumers. That claim is false.

It’s a pity Broder doesn’t seem to care about that.

UPDATE: Bill Scher at Blog for Our Future notes that National Public Radio called Bush-Exxon flak Kenneth Green of the American Enterprise Institute an “environmental analyst” in its piece today, and criticizes John Broder for “giving a false impression that even bill supporters think fighting global warming is bad for consumers.”

UPDATE II: David Roberts at Gristmill writes that Broder’s “lamentable” piece shows “advocates for action on climate change have lost the framing battle.”

Bush Calls Inaction The ‘Right Way’ To Deal With Global Warming»

In an address calling on Congress to make all his tax cuts permanent, President Bush discussed the upcoming Senate debate on the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 3036), claiming it would “impose roughly $6 trillion of new costs on the American economy.” He continued:

There’s a much better way to address the environment than imposing these costs on the job creators, which will ultimately have to be borne by American consumers. And I urge the Congress to be very careful about running up enormous costs for future generations of Americans. We’ll work with the Congress, but the idea of a huge spending bill fueled by taxes — increases — isn’t the right way to proceed.

An accompanying White House statement indicates that Bush would veto the bill.

Bush’s argument that mandatory emissions reductions like those called for by Lieberman-Warner represent “enormous costs” on “job creators,” “American consumers,” “future generations of Americans” and the “American economy” is classic Bush doublespeak. When he unveiled his plan to allow global warming pollution to increase for the next 17 years and give polluters new tax cuts, he called it “an ambitious new track for greenhouse gas reductions.” The White House now describes this approach as the “right way.”

In truth:

The Bush Approach To Global Warming Is Catastrophic. The emissions path called for in Bush’s climate plan would lead to well over twice as much global warming over the next few decades as we have already experienced. Sea level rise would eliminate 30 percent of coastal wetlands and displace millions of people. There would be significant species loss around the globe, including practically all of the world’s coral reefs. Wildfires, drought, floods, and heat waves would destabilize the global economy. [IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, 2007]

The Bush Approach To Global Warming Aids Polluters, Hurts American Jobs. The White House calls for federal subsidies for the coal and nuclear industry without any mandatory reductions on carbon emissions. In addition, the White House attacks Lieberman-Warner for making Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements on new technology investments. [White House Statement of Administration Policy, 6/2/08]

The Bush Approach To Global Warming Will Bring Enormous Costs For Future Generations Of Americans. A Natural Resources Defense Council report finds that under a global warming path consistent with the Bush approach, “Four global warming impacts alone — hurricane damage, real estate losses, energy costs, and water costs — will come with a price tag of 1.8 percent of U.S. GDP, or almost $1.9 trillion annually (in today’s dollars) by 2100.” By 2025 — when the Bush plan would begin to possibly reduce emissions — the costs would already be $271 billion a year. [NRDC, 5/08]

Under the Bush approach to the Iraq war and the U.S. economy, hundreds of billions dollars have been lost irrevocably, corporate polluters have enjoyed record profits, and energy and food costs have risen without any benefit to consumers. Under the Bush approach to global warming, trillions of dollars will be lost irrevocably to damage from climate change, money that could instead be spent building the post-carbon economy.